Trump can’t create federal voter rolls or limit access to mail-in ballots, rules rule | Today’s news
A federal judge has struck down key parts of President Donald Trump’s executive order to reshape the election administration, ruling that the president overstepped his constitutional authority by trying to create a federal voter eligibility system and restrict access to mail-in ballots.
The ruling marks the second major court setback in two days in Trump’s push to increase federal oversight of US elections.
What did the judge decide?
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that key provisions of Trump’s March executive order are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced during the 2026 midterm election cycle.
-The President cannot create a federal list of eligible voters.
-The President cannot direct the US Postal Service to determine who can receive postage stamps.
-These provisions violate the constitutional separation of powers because election rules are primarily set by the states and Congress, not the White House.
Talwani described the provision as “legally void” as it wrongly transferred electoral power to the executive.
What was Trump’s executive order trying to do?
The executive order wanted:
Create a database of federal citizenship voters
The administration wanted federal agencies, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration, to help compile a nationwide list of eligible voters.
The proposed database would be shared with states to verify voter eligibility.
Link postal ballots to the federal list
The order directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver postal tickets only to voters who are on the federal eligibility list.
Supporters argued the measure would prevent non-citizens from voting.
Critics said it would cause confusion, disenfranchise legitimate voters and put election responsibility in the hands of a federal agency not designed to manage elections.
Why did the states challenge the order?
A coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia argued that the Constitution gives states and Congress — not the president — the power to regulate elections.
States argued that:
-The order interfered with state electoral powers.
-Compliance would impose significant costs on election administrators.
-The system could disrupt voting before November 2026 mid-semester.
-It could create uncertainty and fear among voters and election officials.
The lawsuit was led by a largely Democratic attorney general, although lawyers representing Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro also joined the challenge.
Why did the judge act now?
The Trump administration has argued that the calls are premature because the order has not yet been fully implemented.
She noted that election-related deadlines are fast approaching and that the wait could cause significant disruption ahead of the November 2026 elections.
According to the ruling, delaying the review could cause “significant difficulties” for states trying to prepare for the upcoming elections.
Why is postal voting at the center of the dispute?
Trump has repeatedly criticized mail-in voting since losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
They have long argued that postage stamps increase the risk of fraud.
-Several audits and investigations have found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
-Voting non-citizens is already illegal under federal law.
-Cases of voting without a citizen remain rare.
Many states rely heavily on voting by mail.
For example, Arizona officials say roughly 80% of ballots in the state are cast by mail.
Read also | ‘Hottest country on earth’: Trump’s boldest praise at America’s 250th kickoff
Why did election officials oppose the Postal Service’s role?
The executive order would give the United States Postal Service an unprecedented role in election administration.
Critics have argued that postal workers are not equipped to determine voter eligibility.
Postal workers’ unions have warned that requiring mail carriers to verify voter eligibility could politicize one of the nation’s most trusted institutions.
Election administrators also questioned how the USPS could realistically verify voter status before ballots were delivered.
Is this the first court setback for Trump’s campaign orders?
Just a day earlier, another federal judge blocked a separate Trump election executive order that wanted to require documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
Together, the rulings represent a significant judicial pushback against Trump’s attempts to use executive power to reshape the electoral administration.
The White House has already indicated it will appeal.
Administration officials say the executive order is legal and necessary to protect election integrity.
The legal battle is therefore expected to continue through the federal appeals courts and could eventually reach the US Supreme Court.
Why does it matter?
The decision points to a fundamental constitutional dispute over who controls elections in the United States.
At stake are questions about:
-Presidential power versus state power.
-Federal involvement in election administration.
– Electoral security and verification of electoral eligibility.
Read also | US Supreme Court Approves Trump’s TPS and Asylum Immigration Actions
